from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

Florida. It's always Florida. Last time it was the city of Tamarac, Florida making bogus trademark claims to try to silence a blogger. And this time, it's the city of Coral Gables (basically a part of Miami). Apparently the powers that be in Coral Gables are not fans of free speech if it involves people disagreeing with their decisions. And thus, they're willing to send completely bogus threat letters to Facebook to silence anonymous critics, followed up by filing a lawsuit against Facebook to identify them.

I first came across this story thanks to Alfred Spellman, who pointed me to an article by Jessica Lipscomb about the city suing Facebook, and there have been similar stories in the Miami Herald as well. Reading those stories still left me scratching my head a bit, and part of the issue (again!) is Florida. So I've tracked down the full complaint and also emailed the city attorney filing the lawsuit with questions, as I discuss below.

But first, let's back up and explain what's happening. Recently, the city decided to hire private unarmed security guards, which has created some controversy, especially with the local police who aren't happy about these interlopers. So it shouldn't have been that surprising that someone started posting on Instagram and Facebook criticizing the city. From the Miami Herald:

In May, groups called Protect Coral Gables and "Coral Gables residents who care" posted a video on Facebook and Instagram that shows one girl attacking another, knocking her to the ground, then kicking her and stomping on her head. Three men in vests marked “security” watch but don’t intervene.

The posts said "$610,000 tax dollars wasted on security guards in Coral Gables" and described the video saying that the "security guards can only watch as a girl is beaten."

"Don’t let this happen in Coral Gables. Call your elected officials and tell them to step up to the plate and protect our families. Demand that they hire certified police officers."

The video, for what it's worth, was apparently from a few years ago in Seattle -- which is mentioned seven seconds into the video in question -- though the city of Coral Gables insists that the video is misleading and people are implying it's happening in Coral Gables. From the legal complaint, we can see what the city was mad about (though I don't understand why they're so mad about it, as it appears they're a bunch of thin skinned bullies who can't take even the slightest criticism).

On Instagram, they were upset about this ad along with the text above:

That seems like pretty normal "citizen speaking up on a matter of public interest" social media content. And, yes, it does seem noteworthy that the post appeared to have merely 59 views at the time the Coral Gables government decided to take action.

The Facebook complaint is even more ridiculous. They're upset about two Facebook groups. The first was called "Protect Coral Gables" and the second "Coral Gables Residents Who Care." And the main complaint is that the Facebook group uses the (trademarked) logo of Coral Gables. From the complaint:

I'm at a loss as to how Coral Gables attorneys could possibly think this is infringing. These people are commenting on Coral Gables policies and have created a group about Coral Gables, which is pretty obviously done by concerned citizens rather than the government. There's no likelihood of confusion here. And, importantly, they're not using the logo in commerce, so there's no trademark issue at all. Oh, and we should also point out that the Lanham Act forbids cities from trademarking their logos.

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it... [c]onsists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof

So, yes, the USPTO may have registered Coral Gables' logo trademark, but it is obviously invalid under the law.

The whole thing appears to be that Coral Gables officials are upset that their own constituents are criticizing their decision and they decided to "do something about it."

I mean, it's fine to be unhappy about it, but it's another thing entirely to try to silence and then identify those critics. But, hey, Florida. And here's where things start getting stupid. It appears that the city started searching for any excuse to try to silence and/or identify the critics. In one report, they claimed it was "defamation" or "deception":

"It upset me when I saw it that someone … is trying to defame the city," said Commissioner Frank Quesada. "It’s meant to deceive, it’s meant to scare."

But, that's silly. There's no defamation. There's no deception. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court clearly states in the famous First Amendment case New York Times v. Sullivan, the government cannot sue for defamation:

What a State may not constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal statute is likewise beyond the reach of its civil law of libel. The fear of damage awards under a rule such as that invoked by the Alabama courts here may be markedly more inhibiting than the fear of prosecution under a criminal statute.

Now, that's coming from a Commissioner, not the city attorney, so you'd think that the city attorneys would educate Quesada. They did the opposite.

In one of the articles, Coral Gables' city attorney Craig Leen makes this ludicrous statement:

"They’re free to put any statement they want to make but what they can’t do is put a video of a terrible incident that did not happen in Coral Gables and make it seem like it happened in Coral Gables," Leen said.

Except... they didn't. First, the video identifies itself as happening in Seattle in the first seven seconds. Second, the exhibit in Leen's own lawsuit clearly says "Don't let this happen in Coral Gables" which pretty clearly states that the events in the video happened elsewhere. Here's yet another exhibit showing "don't let this happen in Coral Gables" appearing directly above the video:

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Before the city filed the lawsuit, deputy city attorney Miriam Ramos sent a cease and desist letter to both Instagram and Facebook (and, yes, Instagram is owned by Facebook), claiming that the social media posts violated the city's trademarks, even though they clearly do not as explained above. Not only did she send a cease and desist, she claimed that if they failed to comply, she would magically fine them $500 per day.

Instagram General Counsel,

It has come to the attention of the City of Coral Gables that an Instagram page/ad exists under the name "Protect Coral Gables." The page/ad contains an emblem that is a trademark owned by the City of Coral Gables (see attached as Exhibit A). The trademark is registered in the United States (Registration No. 4,307,912). Further, the page/ad contains content that is erroneous and misleading, including a video of an attack on a woman.

We, therefore, order that your company immediately cease and desist from allowing the use of our trademarked logo on the "Protect Coral Gables" Instagram page/ad and remove the erroneous and misleading content contained in the page/ad. Pursuant to Coral Gables Ordinance 2016-059, failure to comply with this letter will subject Instagram to a code enforcement citation carrying a fine of $500 per day of violation.

Sincerely,
Miriam S. Ramos
Deputy City Attorney and City Prosecutor

So... there are a whole boatload of problems with this cease and desist. First, as already explained, what was done by the people protesting the decision was clearly not use in commerce and similarly unlikely to confuse. And, the city can't trademark its logo. In short, it's not trademark infringement in any way, shape or form. Second, the last sentence of the first paragraph is painfully misleading, playing up the fact that the video shows "an attack on a woman" but leaving out all context and almost certainly implying that the video violates the company's terms of service (which it does not).

Finally, the whole $500/day fine thing. As we know, CDA 230 has made it quite clear that Instagram and Facebook can't be fined over a user's speech (which is likely why they try to pretend it's a trademark violation, which is exempted from CDA 230). But, what the hell is Ordinance 2016-59? Well, I'll tell you that the city doesn't make it easy to figure that out, but I finally tracked down the ordinance, which became Section 2-203 of the code of the city of Coral Gables, and it says:

(a) The city attorney is authorized to issue cease and desist letters for violation of the City Code, Zoning Code and any other applicable law where such violation causes harm to the city, its residents or its businesses.
(b)
It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to disobey the demand made by the city attorney or his/her designee, on behalf of the City of Coral Gables, in a cease and desist letter.
(c)
Failure to obey the demand made in a cease and desist letter shall result in the issuance of a code enforcement citation, punishable by a fine of $500.00 per day.

But, uh, what Facebook and Instagram did is not a violation of City Code or (especially) Zoning Code. It's not a violation of any "applicable law." This is just a city attorney trying to talk big, and even then can only threaten a $500 fine normally used for those with zoning violations -- targeting one of the largest companies in the world. Good luck with that.

Instagram replied to Ramos, noting that the user appeared to have removed the content already themselves, so there was no problem. Ramos responded, somewhat hilariously, saying that if the ad reappeared, she'd start fining them $500 per day. Can you say "prior restraint"? Perhaps they don't teach that where Ramos went to law school.

On behalf of the City of Coral Gables, the cease and desist letter remains in effect and if another ad is published using our trademark, Instagram will be fined $500 per day.

Please provide this email to your general counsel and ask them to respond to us.

Instagram then responded, finally pointing out that there was no trademark infringement.

Hi,

Thanks for your report. Based on the information you've provided, it is not clear that the content you've reported infringes your trademark rights. The reported party appears to be using your trademark to refer to or comment on your goods and services.

For this reason, it does not appear that the reported content is likely to confuse people as to source, sponsorship or affiliation, and we are unable to act on your report at this time.

Thanks,

Liam
Intellectual Property Operations
Instagram

Hats off to you, "Liam." Unfortunately, the enforcement folks at Instagram's parent company, Facebook, didn't bother to look at what was happening, and caved in immediately:

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this matter to our attention. We removed or disabled access to the content you reported for violating the Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. We understand this action to resolve your intellectual property issue.

Facebook: you got this one wrong. There's no violation there.

And, either way, what benefit did Facebook get for complying with Coral Gables' censorial bullying? It got dragged into court. Because after all this, the city filed a complaint for a "pure bill of discovery." You may recall the concept of Florida's "pure bill of discovery" as it played a prominent early role in the Prenda saga. It's a generally antiquated law to obtain discovery (which is legalese for "force you to hand over info"). Indeed, there's some argument that John Steele of Prenda moved from Illinois to Florida early on in Prenda's history in order to use Florida's pure bill of discovery to uncover the names of people he wanted to shake down. Courts eventually put a stop to it, but here the City of Coral Gables is trying to use it to identify anonymous critics.

The complaint repeats the misleading claim that the use of the logo is trademark infringement, as well as the false claim that the Instagram ad is "erroneous and misleading." It is neither. Hell, the city's cease-and-desist and complaint are both a hell of a lot more erroneous and misleading than anything in the Instagram ad. And, again, the language here hints at a possible defamation claim which is not allowed under the First Amendment, as made clear by NYT v. Sullivan. Do the city attorneys of Coral Gables not know this... or do they not care?

Then the complaint demands "any and all records identifying the name, address, telephone number of the entity and/or individual(s) responsible" for posting that content.

Let's be clear: this is complete unconstitutional bullshit. I've emailed city attorney Craig Leen as well as the outside lawyer who filed the complaint, Anna Marie Gamez, asking them to explain how any of this could possibly pass constitutional muster. The Supreme Court seriously frowns on this kind of thing. Beyond the NYT v. Sullivan mentioned above, in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (which involves a government body going after someone for handing out anonymous pamphlets concerning an issue of public concern), Justice Stevens wrote in the opinion:

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

I emailed city attorney Craig Leen (as well as the city's outside attorney, Anna Marie Gomez of the law firm Holland & Knight). Just as I was finalizing this post, Leen responded to my emails insisting that the complaint has no First Amendment problems and that their trademark claims are legit:

I want to assure you that the City views the bill it filed as meritorious, and certainly not frivolous. The City also views its bill as consistent with the First Amendment and trademark law.

When asked how, Leen gave some boilerplate language about trademark:

The City’s trademark was used in the profile pictures as if Coral Gables was sponsoring the site. This does not fall under fair use. It is an attempt to appropriate Coral Gables’ mark to induce people to view the post and causes confusion as to whether this highly misleading post is being sponsored or endorsed by the City of Coral Gables. For example, if you look at Exhibit E to the Complaint, at the attachment to the cease and desist letter, it shows the word “Sponsored” right next to the City of Coral Gables mark. The City is seeking to protect its mark and has a right to do so.

Again, this is wrong. Even setting aside the fact that the Lanham Act forbids cities from trademarking their logos, the exhibit he mentions (Exhibit E) does not at all show the word "sponsored" next to the City of Coral Gables mark, and certainly not in a manner that has a likelihood to confuse. Remember, this is the Instagram post (shown above) that clearly shows that it's from a group called "Protect Coral Gables" and the text of the image and the text beneath the image make it blatantly obvious that this is someone protesting the City's actions, not coming from the city itself. The fact that it is a "sponsored" post is meaningless here. This is clearly people of Coral Gables using their right to petition the government.

And the city of Coral Gables is trying to stomp that out. This is very clear abuse of the First Amendment and Leen should be ashamed of trying to pretend otherwise.

It appears that the city of Coral Gables is quickly shooting to the top of the list of thuggish, censorial cities, whose officials can't handle even the slightest criticism of their decisions. You would hope that, at some point, someone explains to them the nature of the First Amendment as well as two of the most famous cases from the Supreme Court that clearly bar this action. And it doesn't matter at all how you feel about the initial action (the hiring of security guards). Indeed, as many would guess from how we cover police issues here, I tend to think hiring unarmed security guards is a much better solution than hiring more armed police officers. But how can a city and its leaders have such thin skins that they'd be willing to trample all over the First Amendment over a tiny bit of criticism seen by fewer than 60 people (including the city's own lawyers)?

Oh, and let us not forget that Florida's got a nice (relatively new) anti-SLAPP law that seems tailor made for this kind of thing, which might mean that Coral Gables taxpayers will be footing Facebook and Instagram's attorneys' fees, should they seek to use the law. If there was already concern about Coral Gables wasting money on security guards, I can't imagine that it will go over all that well that it's also wasting it on frivolous witch hunts for anonymous critics online.

from the dodge-one-bullet dept

The attacks on Section 230 of the CDA are coming in all directions these days, unfortunately. Last year, we wrote about a series of troubling rulings in California that opened up the possibility of chipping away at 230's important protections of internet services. If you're new here, Section 230 says you can't blame an internet service for what a user does with that service. This should be common sense, but because people like to sue the big companies rather than the actual people doing stuff, it's necessary to stop bogus lawsuits. A little over a year ago, we wrote about one of these troubling rulings in California, where a judge ruled that publicity rights aren't covered by CDA 230.

The case is pretty complex, but the very simplified version is that a "country rap" musician named Jason Cross, who uses the stage name Mikel Knight, has made a name for himself with a weird "street team" operation that travels around the country aggressively trying to get people to buy his CDs. Some of the people who were part of the street team (or possibly who knew them) weren't happy with the way Cross treated them and set up a Facebook group: "Families Against Mike Knight and the MDRST" (MDRST = Maverick Dirt Road Street Team -- which is what Cross calls the street team). Cross sued in Tennessee to try to find out who was behind the group and demand the page get taken down. He then also sued Facebook in California because why not?

Facebook hit back with an anti-SLAPP motion, pointing appropriately to CDA 230. The court accepted those arguments on some of the claims, but rejected it on the publicity rights claims from Cross, saying that publicity rights are "intellectual property" and intellectual property is exempt from CDA 230. That's... wrong, basically. And the 9th Circuit has clearly said that CDA 230's exemption of intellectual property only applies to federal intellectual property law. Publicity rights are state law.

Thankfully, as Eric Goldman lets us know, the California state appeals court has rejected the lower court's ruling, though for other reasons than that the lower court misunderstood CDA 230. Instead, the court ruled (also correctly) that publicity rights weren't even at issue in this case. It notes that California's publicity rights law requires the party (in this case, Facebook) to have "used" the plaintiff's identity. But that didn't happen here. In fact, the only thing argued is that Facebook put ads on these pages. That's not a publicity rights issue.

Nowhere does Knight demonstrate that the advertisements appearing next to the pages used his name or likeness, or that any of the advertisements were created by, or advertised, Facebook. All he claims is that Facebook displayed advertisements next to pages created by third parties who were using Knight‘s name and likeness to critique his business practices—and their allegedly fatal consequences. While Knight claims that ―Facebook continues to place ads on all the unauthorized Facebook pages, he necessarily concedes that his name and likeness appear not in the ads themselves, but in the content posted to Facebook by third parties.

[....]

The gravamen of Knight‘s complaint is that Facebook displayed unrelated ads from Facebook advertisers adjacent to the content that allegedly used Knight‘s name and likeness—content, Knight concedes, created by third-party users. He has not, and cannot, offer any evidence that Facebook used his name or likeness in any way.

[....]

In sum, the evidence demonstrates that Facebook has not used Knight‘s identity, and any right of publicity claims fail for this reason alone. Likewise for failure to show appropriation.

The court still isn't done:

Knight has not even alleged—let alone shown—that any advertiser used his name or likeness. He thus cannot establish that anyone, let alone Facebook, obtained an advantage through use of his identity. Indeed, the evidence Knight submitted below demonstrated either that no advertisements appeared alongside the pages at issue, or that the advertisements that did appear adjacent to the content posted by third parties made no use of his name or likeness. At most, Knight has shown that Facebook allowed unrelated third-party advertisements to run adjacent to pages containing users‘ comments about Knight and his business practices. This is insufficient.

The court chooses not to address the more basic issue of publicity rights under CDA 230.

The rest of the ruling is interesting in its own right, as Cross had also appealed the parts upholding Facebook's anti-SLAPP motion, but fails badly. The court notes that it's fairly obvious that the issue involves a topic of public interest, despite Cross's claims to the contrary. And then there are some weird claims attempting to piggyback on the Barnes v. Yahoo case from years back, in which Yahoo lost its 230 immunity because an employee directly promised to remove certain content. Cross tried to argue that Facebook's terms of service promise it, too, will remove content. But... that's very different, and not what Facebook's terms of service actually say. Separately, Cross claims (to make Barnes more applicable) that Facebook privately did communicate to him that it would remove content. The court's not buying it (neither did the lower court):

Contrary to Knight‘s assertions, the complaint does not arise from "private" statements or promises made to Knight in Facebook's terms. Indeed, similar arguments made by other plaintiffs against Facebook have been rejected by district courts, in language directly applicable here: "while Facebook‘s Terms of Service 'place restrictions on users‘ behavior,' they 'do not create affirmative obligations‘ " on Facebook....

Plaintiffs' brief states that "As a requirement to signing up for Facebook, Mr. Knight had to accept Facebook's Terms of Service. Among other things, the Terms of Service—along with certain 'supplemental terms' specifically incorporated by reference—prohibited harassing and violent speech against Facebook users. These supplemental terms also made an explicit promise to Knight: 'We remove credible threats of physical harm to individuals.' Facebook also stated that '[w]e want people to feel safe when using Facebook,' and agreed to 'remove content, disable accounts, and work with law enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.'"

As will be seen, there was much language in Facebook's terms and conditions providing for Facebook's discretion vis-a-vis content on its pages. But even if statements in Facebook's terms could be construed as obligating Facebook to remove the
pages—which plaintiffs have not demonstrated—it would not alter the reality that the source of Knight's alleged injuries, the basis for his claim, is the content of the pages and Facebook's decision not to remove them, an act "in furtherance of the . . . right of petition or free speech."

The court also dings Cross for claiming that Facebook's terms say stuff they do not:

...even if Facebook's terms and community standards were the relevant statements or conduct at issue here, Knight has not identified any "representation of fact" that Facebook would remove any objectionable content. Indeed, the actual terms are to the contrary, providing in essence that Facebook has the discretion to remove content that violates Facebook policies. By way of illustration, the terms include that: "We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement or our policies." The terms also make clear that Facebook is not responsible for "the content or information users transmit or share on Facebook," for "any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content or information you may encounter on Facebook," or for "the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of Facebook." As Facebook sums it up, "We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it."

So, in the end, this is a good result, tossing out last year's bad ruling, though skipping over the CDA 230 question. And, as Eric Goldman notes, that keeps things at least a little murky:

Publicity rights law is a doctrinal mess. Courts routinely struggle with how to apply publicity rights laws to ad-supported editorial content that references or depicts a plaintiff. The appellate court got to the right place, but I don’t have much faith that future courts will do the same.

from the never-a-dull-moment dept

Another day, another SLAPP suit -- but, unfortunately, not much in the way of an anti-SLAPP law to protect against it. As you may have heard recently, Fox News host Eric Bolling was recently suspended by the channel after Yashar Ali reported in the Huffington Post that Bolling had sent "lewd" texts to colleagues at the station, including the ever popular dick pic "unsolicited photo of male genitalia via text message." Earlier this week, Bolling announced that he looked forward to clearing his name and apparently he's decided to do that by... suing the reporter Yashar Ali for $50 million.

We don't have the full complaint, but Ali has received a summons, which gives us some information. The notice part reads:

The nature of this action is for damages and injunctive relief based on defamation arising from the defendant's efforts to injure plaintiff's reputation through the intentional and/or highly reckless publication of actionable false and misleading statements about the plaintiff's conduct and character. As a result of the defendant's action, the plaintiff has been substantially harmed.

And...

The relief sought includes, but is not limited to, reputational damages, monetary damages, special damages, punitive damages, costs, fees, injunctive relief and such other relief as is just and proper, in an amount not less than $50 million.

A few important things here. The lawsuit is filed in New York state court, not federal court, and it may stay there as both Bolling and Ali appear to be in the state. As we've noted many times in the past, New York has an embarrassingly weak anti-SLAPP law, something it should really work on fixing (being the "media capital of the world" and all...). Also of note: Bolling is targeting Ali directly and not the Huffington Post, which published his article, or any of the layers of parent companies for HuffPo: AOL and Verizon. It is likely Ali does not have $50 million, though I'm pretty sure that those other companies do. Not that they should or would pay -- but if Bolling is truly seeking $50 million, you'd think he'd target the companies with the actual money, rather than the lowly reporter. The targeting of the reporter alone certainly adds weight to the idea that this is a pure SLAPP suit, targeting a reporter and trying to silence him.

Ali, for his part, stands by his reporting and promises not to be intimidated:

Just received a summons. Eric Bolling is suing me for defamation - $50 million in damages. I stand by my reporting + will protect my sources

Huffington Post has said it also stands by Ali's reporting, and has "no hesitation" about standing by him financially in the lawsuit, further pointing out that he had a fairly astounding 14 sources for his story. It is true that if the claims were entirely made up they likely would qualify as defamatory, but with that many sources, proving they were made up is not going to be easy. Of course, if the point of the lawsuit is just to create a massive hardship for Ali, that part doesn't matter. And without an anti-SLAPP law to make the plaintiff pay the legal fees, such cases can be overwhelming.

One other element of this is that Bolling's lawsuit might serve another purpose: scaring anyone else (beyond the 14 who have already spoken) from speaking out about potential misdeeds for fear of having that info come out in a lawsuit. That's a separate form of chilling effects created by these kinds of lawsuits, and a problem in and of itself.

It seems quite likely that Ali will seek to have the case tossed out as early as possible, but if it actually goes to discovery, well... I'm not sure Bolling will enjoy opening himself up to that. When people get angry over coverage, filing a defamation lawsuit often is their instinctual reaction -- but it can certainly backfire.

When a person using a phony name posted a one-star rating – out of five stars – about psychiatrist Dr. Mark Beale on a Google Maps locator box, Beale saw it.

He was not amused. In fact, the Charleston-area psychiatrist was so disturbed that he filed a libel lawsuit against “John Doe.”

Beale in a separate court action now is demanding that the Internet behemoth Google divulge “John Doe’s” real name so he can go forward with his libel suit against the anonymous negative commenter. Google, headquartered in California, has 72,000 employees and is the world’s most widely used search engine.

The one-star review on Google “unfairly caused him to lose the goodwill and confidence of the community ... and harmed him in a way that lowers the estimation in the community about his professional practice as a psychiatrist,” wrote Steve Abrams, Beale’s attorney in the action, filed in state court in Charleston County.

Beale alleges a lot of things in his suit. He claims the one-star rating -- left by a single person with zero additional commentary -- has led to "extreme and constant distress." He points out he has received mostly positive ratings elsewhere and that the person clicking on the single star -- "Richard Hill" -- is not a patient of his, at least not under that name.

Of course, Beale's online ratings have fallen significantly since the filing of this lawsuit. Some have pointed out the "extreme and constant distress" Beale claims to be suffering as a result of this single single-star review isn't the sort of reaction one would expect from a mental health professional.

Beale's attorney, Steven Abrams of Mount Pleasant, said he has handled several similar cases, and companies like Google, AT&T, Comcast and Verizon typically hand over identifying information of anonymous users.

“Why Google fought this case, I have no earthly idea,” Abrams said. “There’s not really a lot of case law (in South Carolina) ... on these types of cases because they don’t usually result in a fight.”

Maybe he should get out more. Reviews are protected speech, for the most part. Stated opinions aren't defamation, no matter how caustic they are. That Google would oppose the unveiling of a person who effectively said nothing more than "1 out of 5" should be unsurprising, not a point of confusion. Besides, as Google pointed out in court filings, Beale has plenty of "more speech" options to combat the one-star review that have nothing to do with pursuing bogus defamation claims.

Google’s legal filing in the case asserts that the one-star posting by “John Doe” had no text with it and is just a “quintessential statement of opinion that cannot be proven true or false.”

Moreover, Google argues, the psychiatrist can post his own rebuttal to the one-star rating “on the same site” and “thereby easily correct any misstatements or falsehoods ... and generally set the record straight.”

So far, the only thing Beale has accomplished is making a fool of himself. His ratings at multiple sites are starting to collapse. At this point, there's nothing to be gained from pursuing the lawsuit, other than keeping his nonplussed counsel employed. His overreaction to a wordless one-star review has done more damage to his career than ignoring it ever would have.

After nearly four years, convicted bomber and perjurer Brett Kimberlin has lost his lawsuit against your favorite blogger (that’s me!). Federal District Judge George Hazel today issued an opinion granting me summary judgment in Kimberlin’s frivolous and censorious lawsuit against me.

It is a total and complete victory. There will be no trial. I will pay nothing. I will take down no blog posts about Kimberlin. The lawsuit is simply over. (Of course, he’ll appeal. He always appeals.)

This should have been a simple anti-SLAPP case. Should have. Wasn't. (Part of it is Maryland's weak take on anti-SLAPP.) It took four years to resolve and tons of pro bono hours. Kimberlin claimed he had been defamed by Frey's post, which was based on four news sources and covered his conviction for bombing and his rise to dubious fame as Dan Quayle's pot dealer (back when Quayle was still VP/relevant).

Kimberlin has a long history of abusive, vexatious lawsuits -- all of them filed with the intent of shutting down criticism. His defamation claim was just the tip of iceberg. In his legal threat (all the way back in 2010), Kimberlin claimed a variety of injuries from Frey's post, accusing him of cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and "interference with business."

It's all over now but the appeals process. Free speech was ably defended by two great lawyers working for free. (You'll probably recognize Ron Coleman as the counsel in the recent Supreme Court Tam decision, which declared the trademark's board refusal to recognize "disparaging" marks was a violation of the First Amendment.)

Even though Frey's post is upbeat, this was still a four-year bogus, censorial legal battle that cost the defendant (and his reps) time and money to defend against. Despite Kimberlin pretty much admitting he files lawsuits to harass people, no court has sanctioned him for this behavior. This court doesn't either, but it does allow Patrick Frey to dismiss the lawsuit and leave all his criticism of Kimberlin intact.

What's problematic about the long-running suit is the behavior of parties on both sides. Kimberlin has made it clear he wants to intimidate people into silence. His critics want to attribute everything from SWATtings to pedophilia to Kimberlin with little real evidence*, even though a mere factual rehashing of his past legal troubles would be damning enough. But, based on his responses to all of this, Kimberlin appears to have little interest in even factual rehashings staying alive on the web. He appears to be convinced that there's a massive conservative conspiracy trying to destroy his election-related non-profit. But rather than use his position as a minor liberal icon and the open publishing platform that is the internet to repudiate assertions, Kimberlin files lawsuits.

*UPDATE: Aaron Walker -- another critic Kimberlin sued -- wrote to me to point out the accusations of pedophilia are based on Kimberlin's and his ex-wife's own statements. He also wanted to point out that, while many have written about the SWATtings that followed criticism of Kimberlin, no one (that he's aware of) has tried to directly attribute this to Kimberlin. Details on the pedophilia claims can be found over at Popehat.

His suits are little more than a form of harassment, albeit one that can't possibly be ignored by burying comments, hitting "mute/block" buttons on social media, or simply refusing to engage in arguments with him. A lawsuit must be responded to, and those who are sued are expected to fund their own defenses even when the accusations are clearly bogus. This decision is a small win for free speech and yet another cautionary tale about the abuse of the judicial system to punish bloggers and pundits for their critical words.

This lawsuit is yet another example of what it's so necessary to push for better anti-SLAPP laws, both at the federal level and at the state level. This kind of harassment would not have wasted nearly as much time and resources if there were a reasonable anti-SLAPP law protecting Frey from having to go through such a long and arduous process. Maryland's legislature, in particular, should be aware that it has failed to protect free speech by having a woefully limited anti-SLAPP law that allows cases like this to drag on and on, rather than adopting anti-SLAPP laws similar to those found in other states (like California and Texas) that actually protect free speech by ending these lawsuits much earlier in the process.

from the slappity-slapp-slapp-slapp dept

Yesterday we wrote about coal company Murray Energy and its CEO, Bob Murray, actually following through and suing John Oliver -- something that Murray's lawyers had threatened to do when Oliver and his team had reached out to Murray for a piece Oliver was doing on coal. The result of being threatened was that Oliver spent nearly half of the 24 minute segment on Murray, carefully detailing some of Murray's history and positions. If you missed it, watch it again here:

Anyway, when we wrote about the case yesterday, we noted that we had to do it based solely on the reporting of the Daily Beast, as they broke the story and -- for reasons I still don't understand -- refused to post the actual complaint. However, now we've obtained the full complaint and can dig in on how incredibly silly it is. It appears to be a quintessential SLAPP lawsuit, where the entire point is not to bring a legitimate cause of action, but to chill free speech that criticizes Bob Murray. As Ken "Popehat" White notes, it's "lawsuit as theater" and "an unapologetic political screed" -- that is, apparently designed to rile people up, rather than to present a reasonable legal argument.

Let's dig in. It certainly starts out on a high note with the rhetoric:

On June 18, 2017, Defendants executed a meticulously planned attempt to assassinate the character and reputation of Mr. Robert E. Murray and his companies, including Murray Energy Corporation and those in West Virginia, on a world stage. They did so for their personal financial gain by knowingly broadcasting false, injurious, and defamatory comments to HBO's approximately 134 million paying subscribers, while also knowing that their malicious broadcast would be repeated to countless more individuals through various outlets (including other media owned by certain Defendants.

I've now watched the video four times and I fail to see anywhere that it goes after "those in West Virginia." Indeed, it's actually quite sympathetic to the plight of miners and former miners in the area who have run into problems or lost their jobs. The only people that it holds out as problematic... are the CEOs of various mining companies and the President of the United States. And even if Murray's reputation is mocked in the piece, as long as there aren't false statements of fact, presented with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, it's all perfectly legal. Making Bob Murray look foolish or mean isn't illegal, as long as it's based on statements of opinion or those backed up with evidence.

But, Murray's lawyers appear to suggest that because Murray is in poor health, that somehow makes this entirely different. It's... an odd sympathy play in a lawsuit:

They did this to a man who needs a lung transplant, a man who does not expect to live to see the end of this case. They attacked him in a forum in which he had no opportunity to defend himself, and so he has brought this suit to try to set the record straight.

The health stuff is pure "theater" as Ken noted. The "no opportunity to defend" himself is weird, because I thought Republicans like Murray were completely 100% against a "fairness doctrine" that required equal time for political opponents (which is the right position to take). But, even beyond that, the idea that Murray had no choice but to file a lawsuit to defend himself or to set the record straight is laughable. As Oliver's report clearly showed, Murray is regularly on TV and could easily get a message onto the various TV news programs that have him on as a guest. And, either way (again) that's got absolutely nothing to do with defamation law and how it works.

The sob story continues:

Worse yet, Defendants employed techniques designed solely to harass and embarrass Plaintiffs, including Mr. Murray, a seventy-seven year old citizen in ill health and dependent on an oxygen tank for survival, who, despite the foregoing, continuously devotes his life, including by working seven days each week, to save the jobs and better the lives of the thousands of coal miners that he employs in West Virginia and elsewhere. Defendants childishly demeaned and disparaged Mr. Murray and his companies, made jokes about Mr. Murray's age, health, and appearance, made light of a tragic mining incident, broadcasted false statements, and incited television and internet viewers to do harm to Mr. Murray and his companies, all before a worldwide audience--including the thousands of people that work for and do business with Mr. Murray and his companies in West Virginia. In fact, medical doctors have informed Mr. Murray that he should stop working because the stress is shortening his life. Mr. Murray must, however, continue working because of all those individuals who rely on him. But nothing has ever stressed him more than this vicious and untruthful attack.

Bravo! Quite a performance there. This seems clearly targeted towards pulling at the heartstrings of folks in West Virginia, but, again seems to have little to nothing to do with the actual law. Again, Murray's health is not an issue here -- and if this has caused him more stress than anything else in his life ever, then Mr. Murray has led an incredibly low stress life. Is he really saying that a late night British comedian on a premium channel has caused him more stress than the time that one of his mines collapsed and killed a group of his employees? If so... that's... weird. Separately, making fun of someone's age, health or appearance (and I don't recall any actual jokes about his age or health...) is, again, not defamation. It's sort of protected by the First Amendment. The only thing that could be defamation is "false statements" and notice how the lawsuit seems to be playing up everything else, rather than that?

When you start to dig into the actual meat of the lawsuit... there's almost nothing there. It complains that Oliver's staff may have contacted Murray Energy under false pretenses, saying that they "were under the false impression that Defendants would use this supplied information to accurately and responsibly broadcast the facts and circumstances regarding the topics," but that, again, makes little difference to the question of defamation. Just because a news company doesn't present your version of the events exactly as you want it presented, doesn't make it defamation. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

The lawsuit does provide plenty of additional bits of information concerning the Crandall Canyon mine collapse and how Murray reacted to it. And all of that is perhaps interesting, but again, none of it requires Oliver to portray the story in the way that Murray Energy likes. And, again, if you go back and review the actual story that Oliver did, he does not contradict any of the factual claims laid out by Murray's lawyers. Rather, he highlights the stories of miners or families of miners who were impacted by the collapse and were not happy with how Murray responded. The crux of the argument on Murray's side is "but we tried real hard." And, great. But highlighting how others felt about the effort and actions is not defamation. It's presenting other viewpoints.

The only possible "factual" point where there could be some controversy is over whether or not the mine collapsed due to an earthquake, as Murray has insisted since the day of the collapse itself. Oliver pointed to the US government report on the incident put together by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), a part of the US Department of Labor. That report concluded: "The August 6 catastrophic accident was the result of an inadequate mine design," and, on top of it: "MSHA found no evidence that a naturally occurring earthquake caused the collapse on August 6."

In the lawsuit, Murray's evidence that this is false seems to focus on semantics and making fun of the MSHA inspectors (you know they're making fun of them because it puts "experts" in quote marks):

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration's report regarding the collapse (the "MSHA Report") contained multiple concessions that a sudden change in stresses due to a "slip along a joint" or "joint slip in the overburden," which is very similar to the United States Geological Survey's definition of an "earthquake" (i.e., "both sudden slip on a fault, and the resulting ground shaking and radiated seismic energy caused by the slip"), "could have been a factor in triggering the collapse" and was one of the "likely candidates" for triggering the collapse, but MSHA and its "experts" chose not to analyze the seismic data of the triggering event and instead focused on the secondary collapse, which was a disservice to the lost miners, their families and the truth.

Studies have shown that the Mine collapse was a seismic event originating in the Joe's Valley Fault Zone. More specifically, these studies indicated that the triggering event for the seismic disturbance, which was not consistent with normal mining-induced seismicity resulting in the collapse, occurred on a subsidiary fault parallel to the Joe's Valley Fault. This is a more technical manner of stating that the collapse was caused by what many would characterize as an earthquake.

So that first paragraph is nonsense. It's not "actual malice" if you have clear evidence to back up your statements, and the official MSHA report sure seems like pretty good evidence to support that Oliver and his team believed what Oliver said was true. The fact that Murray doesn't like the MSHA "experts" doesn't magically make using their report "defamation." Second, notice that all of the talk about the earthquake comes with qualifying language: "very similar to... definition of an 'earthquake'", "what many would characterize as an earthquake." Even beyond the other stuff, this further undermines any defamation claim over the one sort of "fact" the lawsuit focuses on: if there's a dispute over whether or not what happened was truly an earthquake, then choosing a side in that dispute is not defamation. It's an opinion. That's protected.

Mr. Murray and his companies warned Defendants to cease and desist from a broadcast of defamatory comments or any misguided attempt at humor regarding the tragic mine collapse and loss of life, which Plaintiffs believed would be cruel and heartless.

So, uh, earlier in the complaint, Murray's lawyers argue that they believed that when Oliver and his team reached out they were ordinary journalists, claiming that they reached out "under the guise of responsible and ethical journalism." And, yet, here they admit that that they knew that he's a comedian who regularly satirizes people and companies, thus they didn't want to see a humorous take on the situation. Also, there's no law against "misguided" humor (and, uh, many folks found the humor to be quite on target). Finally, there is nothing in defamation law about it being illegal for you to have "cruel and heartless" comedy. And, in actuality, Oliver's piece was neither cruel, nor heartless. Many would likely argue that it was incredibly sympathetic and empathetic to the plight of struggling coal miners, who are facing a radical transformation of their industry.

The complaint, once again, then hits on the idea that because Oliver's story didn't represent the collapse the way Bob Murray wanted it portrayed, that's defamation. That's... not how it works. It's not how any of this works.

In the ensuing broadcast, Defendants deliberately omitted the facts Plaintiffs provided regarding the Crandall Canyon Mine incident. There was no mention of the efforts Mr. Murray personally made to save the trapped miners. Defendant Oliver did not tell his audience that Mr. Murray arrived at the Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah within four hours of the collapse. Nor did Defendant Oliver say anything about the twenty-eight straight days Mr. Murray then spent on that mountain overseeing the massive rescue efforts, and administering to the families. Nor did he mention that Mr. Murray personally led the rescue efforts when rescue workers were injured and killed in a subsequent event ten days after the initial seismic event, in fact pulling rescue workers from the debris and attending to their injuries with his own hands and administering to them.

That's nice and all... but it's totally meaningless. Not reporting those things is not defamation. Murray has every right to then put out a statement, or go on TV, or get another reporter to tell these stories. But in a lawsuit? Just because the story is about Bob Murray doesn't mean that Bob Murray gets editorial control. That's not how it works, Bob.

Then it gets even more bizarre:

Instead, presumably to boost ratings, line their pockets with profits, and advance the show's anti-coal agenda, Defendant Oliver intentionally, falsely, and outrageously conveyed that Mr. Murray has no evidence to support his statements that an earthquake caused the tragedy that took the lives of Murray Energy miners during the course of their work for the organization.

Rather than fairly characterizing the evidence that he had in his possession on the subject, Defendant Oliver instead quoted an out-of-context snippet from a single report stating that there was "no evidence that a naturally occurring earthquake caused the collapse." Because Defendant Oliver omitted any mention of the other reports he was aware of that evidence that an earthquake caused the collapse, as Mr. Murray correctly stated following the collapse, Defendant Oliver's presentation intentionally and falsely implied that there is no such evidence.

Yeah. So, about that. The above just isn't true. Watch the video again. Oliver directly says that Murray relies on other evidence to support the earthquake claim ("to this day, Murray says the evidence proves that he was correct.") Then Oliver notes (correctly and accurately) that the government report says otherwise: "that was decidedly not the conclusion of the government's investigation." So, for Murray's lawyers to argue that Oliver ignored the evidence on the other side is... simply not accurate. Oliver notes that Murray points to evidence on his side, but he then points to the government's conclusions. Yes, Oliver makes it clear he believes the government's report, but, um, it's the US government. You're not going to win a defamation lawsuit by arguing that relying on the conclusions of a federal government investigation is defamation, just because you have "other evidence" that you claim disagrees with the government's evidence.

Note the immediate caveats of an "earthquake-like event." Again, this undermines the argument that saying a government report concluded it wasn't an earthquake is somehow defamation.

They also did this despite knowing that determinations of causation are vastly complex and can take years before a reliable conclusion can be reached.

So, uh, yeah. About that. This is true, but remember, part of the joke here, from Oliver, was that Murray declared definitively in a press conference the day of the collapse that it was clearly an earthquake that caused this and not the company itself. So, if Murray's own lawyers are now admitting that this is vastly complex and "can take years," it sort of reinforces the key point that Oliver was making, that Murray himself immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was an earthquake and not his fault, when that was not at all clearly know. This filing seems to do more to undermine Murray than Oliver.

Defendants also aired a clip of congressional testimony of a relative of a former employee of Murray Energy that appeared to be dissatisfied with Mr. Murray's handling of the Crandall Canyon Mine collapse, when upon information and belief the statements of that employee were not his own, but were instead scripted by adverse counsel in a lawsuit against Murray Energy and given to the employee to further the agenda of such counsel and their clients.

Right, so this is similar to the whole dismissing the MSHA report by calling its experts "experts." Oliver accurately reported what this relative said. Who wrote it is immaterial. If what that relative said was defamatory, then Murray could go after that relative. But there's no defamation in Oliver playing a clip of Congressional testimony. Again, that's not how it works.

There's a lot more in the lawsuit, which you can read below, but it pretty much all falls into the same issues as the parts described above. It's no surprise that, looking over the website of Murray's lawyers, they don't list defamation as a specialty, but tend to focus on personal injury. There's a lot of complaining and theatricality, but very little of substance, and nothing that I can see that comes anywhere close to defamation. And that makes this a pretty clear SLAPP suit, designed to chill the speech not just of Oliver and HBO, but of any other reporters looking to cover Bob Murray and Murray Energy. This is the nature of chilling effects created by SLAPP suits. They try to punish people for actually speaking out and sharing their opinion while scaring off others from doing the same.

Once again: this is an example of why we need much stronger anti-SLAPP laws at the state and federal level. Laws that require plaintiffs to pay up for filing bogus SLAPP suits, as a deterrent. And, again, one hopes that now that he's facing such a lawsuit (which, as I've said from personal experience is no fun at all, no matter how sure you are that you're in the right), John Oliver will become as outspoken in favor of anti-SLAPP laws as he's been about other important issues.

from the let's-talk-anti-slapp,-john dept

This one is clearly no surprise at all, given that -- as we wrote about just a couple days ago -- Bob Murray and his company Murray Energy were threatening John Oliver with a SLAPP suit if Oliver's satirical report about the coal industry was used to "defame, harass, or otherwise injure Mr. Murray or Murray Energy." Of course, Oliver's report did no such thing... but, alas, Murray has now sued Oliver, HBO, Time Warner... and the writers of the story. The lawsuit was filed in West Virginia state court. In my original post, I suggested it might be filed in Ohio, where Murray Energy is headquartered, but it does also have operations in West Virginia as well. Either way, as with Ohio, West Virginia is a state with no anti-SLAPP law.

Unfortunately, I don't have the full lawsuit. The Daily Beast, which first wrote about the case has chosen -- for whatever reason -- not to post the document, which is pretty lame. However, having watched the John Oliver piece multiple times, I can't see how any of it comes anywhere even remotely near defamatory. It falls into a variety of clearly protected categories, including opinion, satire and rhetorical hyperbole. The idea that there were materially false and defamatory statements that were put forth knowing they were false (or with reckless disregard for the truth) is laughable. There is no way that this lawsuit succeeds -- but, as we've been pointing out -- that's not really the point of most of these kinds of lawsuits. SLAPP lawsuits are designed to create a chill on free speech, by making that speech costly. Obviously, HBO/Time Warner can afford this, and have access to great lawyers, so there's almost no chance that Murray wins the lawsuit, but that's not the point. It will still cost money and lots of time to deal with the lawsuit and that's a hassle.

Murray Energy put out a bizarre statement that does little to support the idea that Murray has an actual case here:

The false and defamatory statements in this broadcast severely and destructively impact Mr. Murray, and all of Murray Energy, particularly our Mines in the State of West Virginia, where we are the largest coal mining employer in the State, as well as coal mining itself, one of the primary foundations of that State's economy.

Murray Energy filed this lawsuit, in part, in order to protect these lives and family livelihoods from the further damage by people who do not want to see coal mined, and want all of those lives destroyed, and will stop at nothing, including lying and fabrications, to accomplish their goal.

This is... laughable if you actually watched the Oliver segment, which is clearly standing up for the workers in these mines, but pointing out how the interests of the bosses -- such as Bob Murray -- are often different than the workers, and highlights a few examples of employees of Murray Energy not appreciating the way Bob Murray ran the company and treated the employees. Similarly, disparaging coal mining itself (which the Oliver report really doesn't even do) is not, in any way, defamatory.

The Daily Beast -- while not posting the complaint -- did get Ken "Popehat" White's opinion on it:

“Overall I’d say it appears frivolous and vexatious,” he said. “Any core of merit is buried in nonsense.”

“It does arguably cite one or two statements (like the bit about earthquakes) that could possibly be defamatory, since they involve fact,” he said. “But for the most part the section describing the purportedly false statements is rambling and semi-coherent, mixing fact with opinion and insult.”

As White notes, the defendants will likely get the case removed to federal court, which should be fairly easy, as there's diversity with most or all of the defendants being in New York, not West Virginia. Of course, it also depends which federal court they remove the case to -- but in some sense, it won't matter at all for anti-SLAPP purposes, since New York (the most likely other destination) has a very weak anti-SLAPP law and it would be tough to apply it here.

So, once again, we can only hope that out of this stupid situation, John Oliver will now become a proponent of much stronger anti-SLAPP laws. If his staff is looking into that issue, I'd be happy to point them to lots and lots of useful experts and resources on anti-SLAPP laws. It's a big issue (that we're living through ourselves) that needs more attention -- the kind of attention that John Oliver is now uniquely positioned to help bring to it.

from the not-a-good-idea dept

This past weekend on John Oliver's Last Week Tonight, he took on the issue of "coal" and some politicians' obsession with coal jobs as the only true "American" jobs. The whole segment is interesting, but obviously not the kind of thing we'd normally write up. What we do frequently write about, however, is censorious threats, often from wealthy execs, designed to try to silence people from commenting on issues regarding those doing the threatening. And, it appears that's exactly what happened with coal exec Bob Murray, the CEO of Murray Energy, when he found out that John Oliver was doing a segment that included some bits about Murray.

I recommend watching the whole thing, but the parts about Murray include a brief bit around 4:45 in the video and then a much longer section starting around 12:30 in the video, where Oliver notes:

I'm going to need to be careful here, because when we contacted Murray Energy for this piece, they sent us a letter instructing us to "cease and desist from any effort to defame, harass, or otherwise injure Mr. Murray or Murray Energy" and telling us that "failure to do so will result in immediate litigation..."

Oliver notes that this is the first cease & desist his show has received (which he agrees is incredible). Oliver also points out that Murray has, in fact, been known to follow through on these threats -- suing the NY Times, a contributor to the Huffington Post and more. Many of these lawsuits appear to be fairly classic SLAPP suits, in which the lawsuits against reporters and journalism outfits are designed to try to silence them. Thankfully, Oliver and HBO have good lawyers who clearly know Oliver's rights to talk about, criticize and satirize Murray -- and Oliver then spends the next ten or so minutes doing so (hilariously), even to the point of involving a talking squirrel (you need to watch it yourself to understand why it makes sense). He also notes this at the end:

Bob Murray, I didn't really plan for so much of this piece to be about you, but you kinda forced my hand on that one. And I know you're probably going to sue me over this. But, you know what? I stand by everything I said.

Kudos to Oliver for taking a principled stand here for free speech on an important issue. Of course, Oliver has HBO and its lawyers to back him up, but it sure would be a hell of a lot easier if we had strong anti-SLAPP laws to protect him. So, once again, this is why we need a strong federal anti-SLAPP law, not to mention better state-level anti-SLAPP laws. Bob Murray appears to be based in Ohio, which (lucky him) appears to have no anti-SLAPP law, while I believe John Oliver is in NY, which has an incredibly weak anti-SLAPP law.

Perhaps, sometime soon, John Oliver can take on the need for stronger anti-SLAPP laws.

from the good-to-see dept

In March we wrote about the unfortunate situation of two news publications in nearby Santa Clara, California in court in what appeared to be a clear SLAPP suit. The more established publication, "Santa Clara Weekly" and its publisher Miles Barber, had sued a new upstart, "Santa Clara News Online" and its publisher Robert Haugh. It seemed fairly clear that Barber didn't like the fact that Haugh had been criticizing the Weekly, and the lawsuit was just filed to make a nuisance for Haugh. It was notable that the complaint didn't cite a single blog post by Haugh or even quote him. It just paraphrased (badly) a bunch of clearly opinion statements from Haugh. Haugh got assistance from Ken "Popehat" White, who asked the court to strike the lawsuit for violating California's anti-SLAPP law.

Thankfully, the judge in that case has agreed and dumped the case, and has denied Barber's request to file an amended complaint on top of that. As of yet, there does not appear to be a full ruling on this, but congrats to Ken White and Robert Haugh for succeeding here. And, once again, this is a reminder of the need for strong anti-SLAPP laws. They help get rid of frivolous, censorious cases quickly, and they make the plaintiff pay the legal fees of the defendant (which also helps to deter other such frivolous cases).

from the no-fun-at-all dept

Last week, I presented at the always excellent Personal Democracy Forum event in NY, talking publicly for the first time about the lawsuit that's been filed against us. Specifically, what I chose to talk about is the real chilling effects that such a lawsuit can have -- and has already had on us. We've written about SLAPP defamation suits for many, many years. But it's (unfortunately) different (and much, much worse) to experience it yourself. You can see the video here, which got more emotional than I had expected it to be.

If you agree that these chilling effects are a dangerous attack on free speech, please consider supporting our ongoing reporting via any of the following methods: ISupportJournalism.com, Patreon.com, our own Insider Shop, or perhaps you want to buy some t-shirts, hoodies, mugs or stickers. However you support us: thank you. Related to this, I also want to thank both the staff and attendees at PDF, who were amazing, kind, thoughtful and helpful to me over the course of the event.

Separately, Ars Technica just published a long deep dive article on the claims that the plaintiff in the case against us, Shiva Ayyadurai, has made. It's a worthwhile read.